Decision

Williams v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2019 FC 116

This decision addresses an appeal by the Plaintiff, brought as a motion under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, of the Order of the Prothonotary, dated October 22, 2018, dismissing the Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his Statement of Claim. As explained in more detail below, this motion and the Plaintiff’s appeal are dismissed, because I have found no error in the Prothonotary’s Order. ... The Prothonotary observed that Mr. Williams admitted to having no knowledge of any fact that would establish or show exactly what Cisco did to bring about the pleaded result, who within Cisco’s organization carried out these unspecified actions, or even where or when these unspecified actions were taken. Rather, the evidence was that Mr. Williams’ belief that Cisco carried out these unspecified actions was based solely on inferences drawn from certain facts: that, in or around 2014, he observed certain changes in the results displayed following a Google search using his trade-marks, whereby the results of a search using “IT ESSENTIALS” would show links to Cisco’s website (www.netacad.com) rather than Mr. Williams’ website (www.itessentials.ca); that Cisco acknowledged purchasing keyword index rights and advertisement services from Google; and that Google refused to provide Mr. Williams with information as to what involvement Cisco might have had with the altered search results.

Recent Posts

Contributions

Blog

About Me

I am a partner at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP practicing in the area of intellectual property. Material on this website are my own views and do not reflect the position of DLA Piper (Canada) LLP, any of its member firms around the world, or any of its clients. IPPractice.ca grew out of my hobby to gather and share interesting updates on intellectual property to friends and colleagues. This website does not provide legal advice, and should not be relied upon. Hope you enjoy the site - Alan Macek